From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters |
Date: | 2015-12-07 15:35:30 |
Message-ID: | 5665A742.8030705@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/6/15 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I said "in most cases". You can find example cases to support almost any
> weird planner optimization no matter how expensive and single-purpose;
> but that is the wrong way to think about it. What you have to think about
> is average cases, and in particular, not putting a drag on planning time
> in cases where no benefit ensues. We're not committing any patches that
> give one uncommon case an 1100X speedup by penalizing every other query 10%,
> or even 1%; especially not when there may be other ways to fix it.
This is a problem that seriously hurts Postgres in data warehousing
applications. We can't keep ignoring optimizations that provide even as
little as 10% execution improvements for 10x worse planner performance,
because in a warehouse it's next to impossible for planning time to matter.
Obviously it'd be great if there was a fast, easy way to figure out
whether a query would be expensive enough to go the whole 9 yards on
planning it but at this point I suspect a simple GUC would be a big
improvement.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-07 15:54:03 | Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-07 15:24:29 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed to generate plan on lateral subqueries |